Mr. Browne is somewhat right in his response to me and I would like
to accept the blame I am due. I fully agree that his definition of a
libertarian to oppose:

"I think you should actively oppose a Libertarian candidate only if
he is proposing to expand the government in some way, if he is
offering only proposals that most Republicans or Democrats might
support, or if he has a competitor for the nomination that you
prefer."

And if I did not make it clear that I did vote for him then I should
have.

There are other areas where I don't think Mr. Browne is radical
enough and that mostly comes from the movement in the national party
with the increase of what one of the detractors once called "dope
smoking Republicans" a the controllers of the national party. ie. the
emphasis on economic freedom rather than personal liberty. While I
know that both are related most of the libertarians I know that have
been around for a long time came from the left. Making them more "gun
toting hippies vs. the dope smoking republicans".

Also like to apologize to Mr. Browne for saying that he didn't put
his e-mail address in the original article. He did, I just read it as
a URL.

While I will keep voting for the economic side candidates of the LP,
I will keep believing that is the wrong approach to pushing the
libertarian message. I doubt that Mr. Browne pulled more than two or
three votes from Gore but I know that he pulled many from Bush. We
should be pulling equally from both the left and the right.

"all politics is local" seems to have been forgotten by many
libertarians especially the LP. any political movement must be
founded on local politics. which by the way will when in control
decide everything including national politics and national canidates.
politics is a pyramid and needs a large base, it only falls down when
you try to work it from the top down, a pyramid is unbalanced upside
down

Dear Editor:
Harry Browne is being disingenuous when he states "that both Jacob
Hornberger and R.W. Bradford have referred several times to evidence
in the FEC (Federal Election Commission) reports that supposedly
shows that practically none of the money raised by my 1996 or 2000
campaigns actually went in campaigning." (The Libertarian Enterprise
No. 105.)

As Browne knows, my primary focus has always been on putting a
permanent stop to the unethical policies and practices that Browne
has brought into the Libertarian Party and that he and his friends
are determined to continue into the future. These include his
improper payment of money to LP officials as well as the improper use
of LP general resources to advance the personal campaign interests of
Browne and his buddies.

Rather than simply debate the ethics charges, Browne has chosen the
time-honored ritual of a professional public office-seeker when faced
with exposure of political wrongdoing: falsely deny the charges, call
those who expose the wrongdoing liars, and hope that people don't
ultimately discover the truth. But Liberty magazine, where Browne
served as a senior editor for many years, and whose integrity has
never been questioned by anyone, conducted a complete investigation
of the ethics charges, including the examination of thousands of
pages of official FEC documents. As Browne knows, Liberty determined
that the ethics charges were indeed true and that Browne's denials
were false.

Moreover, in an interview with one Peter J. Orvetti during the
presidential campaign, Browne was forced to admit that he had in fact
made the improper payments to LP officials, thereby also admitting
that his earlier denial had been false. With the end of the election,
time is Browne's worst enemy because people are slowly realizing that
he isn't being straight with them.

If Harry Browne, either directly or indirectly, has once again
sprinkled money into the pockets of former or present LP officials,
why shouldn't LP members know about it, especially if LP officials
intend to once again use party resources to advance the personal
interests of Browne and his buds?

I have called for a certified audit of the Browne campaign, which
would include identifying the ultimate recipients of monies paid by
the LP and the Browne campaign to all organizations that have a close
relationship to the Browne campaign, including one named "Optopia."

If Browne and his associate Perry Willis (who once claimed that
conflicts of interest are a necessary part of the Libertarian Party)
have nothing to hide, then why aren't they endorsing my call for a
independent audit (and report) of their campaign expenditures?

At the 2002 LP national convention, LP members will have the choice
of continuing the unethical paradigm that Browne and his cohorts have
brought to the Libertarian Party or instead move in a new direction
of ethics and integrity. If they continue to follow the paradigm of
unethical conduct, they are dooming the party to more electoral
debacles because the American people will never embrace a third party
or a third-party candidate that lacks a commitment to integrity and
ethics. The key to success lies with a paradigm based on integrity,
ethics, truth, openness, and principle.

In recent issues, Mr. Browne has repeatedly challenged the assertion
that he is not 'tough enough' on Libertarian issues, repeatedly
complained about a decided lack of concrete assertions, and railed
against vague allegations and innuendos. He is absolutely 100%
correct—vague innuendos accomplish nothing.

Point number one:
http://www.lp.org/issues/campplat/—Under the
heading "The Platform of the Libertarian Harry Browne for President
Campaign", the following statement is made. "Democrats want even more
gun laws. Republicans want tougher enforcement of the existing gun
laws. But the gun laws are bad laws—every one of them. In the
presidential race, only Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate,
wants to repeal all these harmful laws—so you'll no longer be at a
disadvantage to criminals."

My specific, fact based questions to you, Harry Browne. Are you then
stating, based on the document quoted above, that you would publicly
support the right of any United States Citizen to purchase, own, and
carry—free from any manner of government interference, regardless
of age—any weapon designed to be used by one person against one
person or one small group of people? If so, why did you support the
removal of the children's rights plank from the party platform in
1996? If not, how would you propose to enforce an age limit on
weapons purchases without leaving in place an existing law?

If that purchaser did want to carry that weapon, would you require
him or her to aquire some sort of permit or ID?

Under the LP platform(on the web at
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html) , adopted in
convention, 1998 Washington D.C : "We oppose the issuance by the
government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such
as employment, voting, or border crossing." (As an aside—does that
include drivers licenses to operate a motor vehicle? Licenses to
obtain commercially available demolitions material? Dangerous
chemicals?) Does that statement accurately reflect your position on
concealed carry—that you oppose any form of government
identification, certification, or permit in order for any United
States Citizen to carry any concealed weapon they wish?

I challenge you, Mr. Browne, to answer those questions in a straight
forward manner, truthfully, and completely. In doing so, you will
have answered many of my questions regarding your legitimacy as a
candidate within the Libertarian Party—as well as, I think, those
of many readers of this fine magazine.

I've got an idea. Eliminate the no-guns exception for violent felons.
My feelings on this are: if a person can't return to society as a
full member, they should not be allowed to return. Call it truth in
sentencing, if society wants ten years for armed robbery, then our
criminal does his ten and is finished. If armed robbery is such a
heinous crime that the perpetrator needs to be punished forever,
leave him in prison forever.

I used to enjoy reading TLE, but since you changed to the large,
all-caps type face, I can't bring myself to read it. It's really
uncomfortable and annoying! Please reconsider, and go to a smaller,
lower case-plus-caps style.

Thanks,

Sylvia Olson

[Does anyone else receive TLE looking this way? It certainly doesn't
go out in such format, nor for that matter does it arrive here in
such a format. But Sylvia is neither the first nor the only person to
report this phenomenon. Any input is welcome.—ed.]

1) I like William Stone's concepts, both in terms of getting a
Libertarian into Congress and running "None of the Above" on the
Presidential ticket.

2) Stuart Sanders is, I think, on the right track, when looking at
local abuses. An idea has been percolating beneath the surface of my
brain for some time: Why not indulge in a slight bit of hyperbole in
our campaigns?

My particular beef is with the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which
has, over the course of the past couple of years, towed off two of my
cars for minor infrarctions (two unpaid parking tickets, in one case,
and lack of a licence plate in another). What I'd like to do as an ad
campaign in Philadelphia is a poster showing a PPA truck towing off a
hapless victim with the lettering "STOP THE TERROR!" Underneath, a
few words about the PPA towing off private property for no good
reason, along with an appeal to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

This method can be tailored to the individual neighborhood as well;
in areas where residents are hassled by law-enforcement simply
because of their ethnicity, show a picture of a resident cowering
before a couple of the local constabulary. "STOP THE TERROR! Want The
Man to stay off your back unless you got it coming? Vote
Libertarian!"

Small business? "STOP THE TERROR! Tired of bureaucrats telling you
when and where you can sneeze? Vote Libertarian!"